Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose that only snippets are returned and that full content requires another tool, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, search scope, result formatting, pagination behavior, or any access requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then gives a clear pointer to the sibling tool for the next step.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what a snippet looks like and what the response contains. It gives a solid high-level workflow but leaves the agent guessing about return structure, search scope, and edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds only that searching targets 'block content' and returns 'snippets', which maps to the query parameter but does not meaningfully expand on limit, offset, or page_id semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('block content'), and states the output form ('return snippets'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_pages or search_folder by explicitly scoping to block content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description directly tells the agent what to do after finding matches: use get_block_slice for full content. This is explicit workflow routing and clearly separates the snippet-focused purpose of this tool from the full-content alternative.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.